the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

The goal of the CMA is for weapon fight.

Your thought?

This is an old argument in martial arts about which came -- weapons training or empty-hand. I suspect that in a lot of cultures that empty-hand grew out of weapons usage or was trained almost simultaneously in times of war or persistant hostilities.

The arguments by the gentleman in the video sound plausible and I guess we'll never know 100% for the Chinese styles unless someone comes up with a time machine. Certainly I have read accounts by Western sources in old books and newspaper articles, about some of the recorded interactions with Chinese pirates and soldiers in the Victorian era up to the Boxer Rebellion and there's not much about empty hand, but more on the weapons they used and their tactics compared to what was available to the Western soldiers and sailors fighting them. Then again, to paraphrase an old saying "you don't take a bare hand to a sword fight". [unless you're forced to do so by circumstances].

I've done weapons sparring for more than a decade with a variety of opponents with a variety of backgrounds in archaic weapons usage. Even with protective gear and using blunted weapons; it's easy to get minor injury and/or to lose a friendly contest. It ain't the guy with the flashiest postures or more pleasing structure who wins a match; it's the one with the most training and varied experience, the fastest reactions... and a bit of luck.

I think its true that there is a common intent between Chinese weapons use and barehand forms. In weapons fighting, if both fighters keep to their own space, not applying their weight, and try to score point through touch, then the CMA postures wont be very useful. Just like how in barehand fighting, if both fighter keep to their own space and try to kick and punch each other while keeping their own balance, the CMA postures wont be useful. The CMA way of using the weapon is to move in, and use your weight to control and finish the opponent in one action. Similarly in barehand fighting the CMA postures give you a way to enter with your whole body and make useful contact to disrupt and damage your opponent in one action.

I think saying the barehand postures are based on weapons posture, is maybe not as accurate as to say that the barehand and weapons postures are based on a common intent/strategy. Simply put, if you are going to move in with your entire weight then these postures are useful, otherwise they aren't. This is my experience.



A western sport fencer vs a TCMA weapons method, would result in a similar issue to kickboxing vs TMCA. If TCMA doesn't understand its own power method, and thinks it can defeat contemporary sports methods at their own game I dont think it will go well.

so you can say the mystery of TCMA barehand is explained by TCMA weapons, but then what explains TCMA weapons method and their difference from modern fencing? Until the power method and fighting strategy is understood better, you are just moving the mystery from one area to another.

TCMA, as it was taught to me, isn't complete without the weapons training. The power generating methods, footwork, some of the techniques and strategies are all interconnected and complement each other. I like to think of it as a spectrum: long weapons such as polearms and staves => short weapons such as swords and short staves/sticks => daggers and knives => unarmed combat. The closer you get to unarmed combat, the more overlap there will be. Some arts overlap more than others, but most of the popular TCMA styles put a heavy emphasis on integration. After all, why spend time training two entirely separate things when you can integrate them?

The problem with most TCMA nowadays is not that they aren't practical, but that people don't spar or fence and it is watered down over time. I was fortunate to learn from someone that did both and have not found my skills lacking.
Until very recently in China, one's fate was often decided by whether or not one knew how to wield a weapon (or multiple weapons) and unarmed arts were an afterthought or a sport.

Weapons fight is not a CMA goal but weapons usage is complenmentary to 'upper level' understanding of elements of shuai, na, etc in the execution of what is termed application, functionality and utility. At least for me since I realize that my skill is 'small' but I do understand the comparison whenI l looked and participated in kali/excrima and jian form. Not many may see or understand that but this is what my path has shown me,

I also see and understand that many see this as "fringe understanding" of martial arts in general. Here are soem examples pertaining to hiding in plain sight the functionality vs the 'inner essence". Even elements of Okinawan MA systems had this functionality (concept of roushou hands) but when it shfted in geography (Okinawa to Japan), the external became the view of what we see know today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_FzbMIq-U
Okinawan origins vs current explanations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PtYD_6W7BY
I realize much of this is 'modernist' in apllicationbut this is how Okinawan origin began. NOTE: Okinawan system has south China template based on Crane systems!

Weapons systemss per aikido allows for hand usage practice (utility/function in various application(s) scenarios
Even kali/escrima use of sticks conditions the hand/forearm is its various applications!

Seems to make sense. If you pick up any two sticks or just one long stick, xingyi's 5 elements make intuitive sense. They don't make as much sense empty handed without that context first.

to me personally, part of the reason why cma has become less and less effective is
the way its taught: bare-hand first then weapons.
i personally believe that bare hand cma is derived from weapons
if one does not know weapons, one does not know the full meaning
.... but that's just me

I personally feel like I had no clue why my arts were constructed until I held a long pole, a sword, two knives, and I have yet to get a bow.

Look at the ape(men) in the intro of the 2001 movie

Our hands are designed to hold onto tools, but also for making a good fist..

He obviously has no idea about Baji applications or how a bow was handled in the old China. Some good points, but the issue is way too simplified. Nuf' said.

When I was 11, my brother in law taught me a form Bagua Chuan. The 2nd moves didn't make sense to me.

2nd move - left fist punch to the left, right fist pull to the right, look at left fist.

When I asked my brother in law about the application. He told me it was used to shoot bow and arrow. Later on I found the same move in Yang Taiji bend bow and shoot arrow.

johnwang wrote:When I was 11, my brother in law taught me a form Bagua Chuan. The 2nd moves didn't make sense to me.

2nd move - left fist punch to the left, right fist pull to the right, look at left fist.

When I asked my brother in law about the application. He told me it was used to shoot bow and arrow. Later on I found the same move in Yang Taiji bend bow and shoot arrow.

Yes. That's the point of the video; moves were originally for weapons (e.g., battlefield), not bare hand fighting. Per Dynasty MMA, "CMA needs to evolve:"

Dynasty MMA wrote:At :03 he says, “Why CMA don’t guard the head.” At :21, “Xing yi for example, one above (hand) one below (hand). No head guard. Punches come from the waist. …” At :32, "None of them make sense. Lots of openings. ... Bagua this pose looks good (but) useless in real fights. Traditional wing chun, very low (hands). Modernized wing chun, much higher. Bajiquan has elbow up, one hand down … both head and body are open."

I'm not sure why this is controversial.

As a practical matter, if you want to hurt other people, then using a weapon is the most efficient way to do that. Be that a rock, knife, sword, spear, staff, flamethrower, pistol, rifle, HMG or JDAM. And that is the source of most traditional martial arts.

Using your hand is far less efficient and requires much more skill relative to the damage being done. It was true in the Tang Dynasty and it is true now.

The fact that martial arts have been developed to include effective empty hand applications is remarkable in itself and some systems are based around this (iron palm practices, jujitsu, various forms of wrestling, judo, Western rules boxing, etc.).

So ultimately, I don't view it as an "either/or" versus a "mostly/except" discussion.

Trick wrote:Look at the ape(men) in the intro of the 2001 movie

well that's because that weird rectangle appears. the apes touch it. next thing you know, the one ape starts inventing xingyiquan after picking up a bone and smashing other bones. many years later in the 21st century we wonder about this. it seems obvious that CMA actually comes from this weird space rectangle.